State v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 31 October 1973
• Docket Number: No. 19715,19715
• Citation: State v. Patterson, 200 S.E.2d 68, 261 S.C. 362 (S.C. 1973)
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Cynthia PATTERSON and John Eddie Brooks, Appellants.

Page 68

200 S.E.2d 68

261 S.C. 362

The STATE, Respondent, v. Cynthia PATTERSON and John Eddie Brooks, Appellants.

No. 19715.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 31, 1973.

Robert B. Nance and H. Carter Siegling, Columbia, for appellants.

Solicitor William R. Hare, Chester, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

Cynthia Patterson and John Eddie Brooks were tried and convicted upon an indictment which charged them with violation of § 16--302 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (1962). This section makes it unlawful to possess certain tools commonly employed in the commission of certain crimes. The tools named in the indictment were 'preprinted checks, I.D. cards and credit cards', all of which were alleged to be false, fictitious or the property of another and alleged to be implements and things adapted, designed and commonly used for the commission of forgery.

Upon the call of the case, and again after the State had presented its evidence, and after all evidence was presented, a motion was made to quash the indictment on the ground that preprinted checks, I.D. cards and credit cards were not tools contemplated by the terms of the statute. All three motions were overruled. Both Patterson and Brooks have appealed, alleging error on the part of the trial judge in failing to grant the motions.

The sole issue thus presented is whether the possession of these items by Patterson and Brooks were properly indictable under § 16--302, which provides as follows:

'Making, mending or possessing tools, etc., to be employed in crime.--A person who makes or mends, causes to be made or mended or has in his possession in the day or nighttime any engine, machine, tool, false key, picklock, bit, nippers, nitroglycerine, dynamite cap, coil or fuse, steel wedge, drill, tap-pin or other implement or thing adapted, designed or commonly used for the commission of burglary, larceny, safecracking or other crime, under circumstances evincing any intent to use or employ or allow the same to be used or employed in the commission of a crime or knowing that the same are intended to be so used, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. In either case he shall, upon conviction, be punished at the discretion of the court.'

This provision, commonly referred to as the burglary tool statute, was discussed by this Court in the case of State v. Pulley, 216 S.C. 552, 59 S.E.2d 155 (1950). Pulley was alleged to have had in his possession dynamite fuses and caps, a large and small crowbar, an auger and bit, a small key-hole flashlight, a cord described as a 'strangle cord', a rubber syringe, a quantity of cotton, a large flashlight, an all metal screwdriver, two metal punches, a pair of cotton gloves, adhesive tape, and a number of keys. There was evidence that all of these were adapted to use in activities connected with housebreaking and safecracking. This Court held that the items 'need not have been originally designed for a burglarious purpose, If they are suitable for breaking and entering' (emphasis added). Also see State v. Puckett, 237 S.C. 369, 117 S.E.2d 369 (1960).

All of...